Personally, I am thinking about hitting up a cave with some friends, Netflix, Pizza, and tacos; what about everyone else.

With that being said, here is one news article and hopefully others will chime in to what they think may be an issue for people and maybe what can work. Who knows maybe the world is not as cruel as I thought last night...

VOX wrote:Donald Drumpf’s presidency is going to be a disaster for the white working class

There’s already furious debate about why this is, and how it jibes with data suggesting that Drumpf supporters are richer, not poorer, than average. But let’s not lose sight of something very important: Donald Drumpf’s presidency is going to be an absolute disaster for the white working class, the white poor, and every other economically struggling person in America. The people the media is crediting with Drumpf’s win have a tremendous amount to lose.

Lower-income whites are not going to suffer from Drumpf’s restrictions on Muslims traveling, or from his mass deportations, or from his cavalier attitude toward police brutality. But Drumpf has promised an economic agenda that will increase the ranks of the uninsured by tens of millions, that will eliminate crucial safety net programs for low- and moderate-income Americans, that could start a trade war that drives up prices and devastates the economy, and that will put in place a tax code that exacerbates inequality and leaves many families with children worse off.

That affects all Americans — and with Republicans retaining control over the House and Senate, it stands a very good chance of passing.

Drumpf’s budget cuts could send millions of children into extreme poverty

But the worst is saved for means-tested programs, in particular Medicaid and food stamps. He would move fast to “block-grant” food stamps and Medicaid, transforming them from guarantees of food and medical care for the nation’s poorest people into a slush fund for states. This approach was devastating during welfare reform, and it’s impossible to imagine a way this would happen that wouldn’t exacerbate extreme poverty and hunger. After the end of welfare, food stamps were the last cash-like benefit upon which people without earnings could rely. Ryan will put an end to that.

And then he’d cut all these programs for good measure. Sixty-nine percent of the cuts in his last budget came from programs for people with low or moderate incomes, including $137 billion over 10 years from food stamps (now the block grant), up to $125 billion from Pell Grants, and another $150 billion or more from other low-income programs like Supplemental Security Income and the earned income tax credit. Medicaid would be cut by more than a quarter through the block grant. Ryan has sometimes trolled journalists by claiming to support boosting the EITC, only to propose paying for it by cutting other programs for the poor.

These are changes that will dramatically decrease insurance coverage among the poor, increase hunger, and greatly exacerbate poverty in its most extreme form. And while Drumpf has expressed wariness of tampering with Medicare or Social Security, he has expressed no such hesitation about Ryan’s proposed cuts to programs for the poor.

The Ryan budget has become the key economic agenda of the Republican Party over the past six years. By now it wields substantial, likely majority, support in both houses of Congress, even if Ryan himself does not survive as speaker. And it’s hard to imagine Drumpf using a veto to prevent these kinds of reforms and cuts from becoming law.

As a result, Drumpf will likely oversee the most vicious cuts to programs for poor and medium-income people of any president since Reagan — and could very well go further than Reagan did. The result will almost certainly be a massive increase in uninsurance for the lower-income working people currently covered by Medicaid, an increase in poverty and hunger for the working poor on food stamps, and a large increase in extreme poverty.

With this being said, there s more at the link above. While this is article is targted at white folks, I dare say, white folks is the reason that he got elected. There is a lot of good infomation on what may happen to a lot of programs that many people depend on. That is what is currently worrying myself and others.

I’m a disabled American. Drumpf’s policies will be a disaster for people like me.

It’s the early hours of Wednesday morning, and I’m watching my friends fear for their lives on Twitter. We’ve just learned that Donald J. Drumpf will be the next president of the United States. People are talking about the likelihood that they’ll lose health insurance when the Affordable Care Act is repealed, the fear that the attendant who helps them get dressed in the morning will no longer be available when Medicaid is slashed, the possibility that their conversations with their therapist may no longer be private, the impossibility of paying out of pocket for the medications, in-home care, assistive technology, and other essential parts of disabled life. Like many other people with disabilities, we’re terrified by the prospect of a Drumpf administration and what it may bring to people like us.

Much has been made over (now President-elect) Donald Drumpf’s mocking of disabled New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski last year. Spurred by the widespread outrage at Drumpf’s cruelty, the Democratic National Committee made disability rights a high-profile theme of its 2016 convention. But for most disability rights activists and disabled people I know, the choice to oppose Drumpf had relatively little to do with his mockery of Kovaleski — or his alleged description of deaf actress Marlee Matlin as “retarded,” or even his efforts to kick disabled veteran street vendors off public sidewalks near his buildings. None of us were particularly thrilled by these things, mind you, but they didn’t determine our votes.

What mattered — and matters — to us was policy. Hillary Clinton offered clear, specific, and timely policy proposals to expand the social safety net and civil rights of people with disabilities, while Drumpf made clear his intent to slash services and roll back legal protections. For the millions of Americans with disabilities who depend on Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act to access the health care and public services that mean basic survival, it is policy — not personal insult — that has brought terror and despair in the aftermath of last night’s Drumpf victory.

It’s hard to know what a Drumpf presidency will bring, given our new president-elect’s penchant for playing fast and loose with the details of public policy. At no point during the election did Drumpf issue anything resembling the comprehensive white papers offered by the Clinton campaign on issues like autism, Alzheimer’s, mental health policy, and other segments of the disability community.

Yet the Drumpf campaign did put forward a number of specific commitments relevant to disability, scattered throughout the candidate’s statements and his health care policy platform. With the man now about to become the leader of the free world, it’s worth looking at the impact Drumpf’s policies would have on Americans with disabilities (should he follow through).Drumpf plans to slash the main source of federal financing for disability and aging services

The vast majority of disability services are paid for by the Medicaid program, the state-federal partnership best known for its role in providing health care for low-income Americans. In 2014, Medicaid spent approximately $151.8 billion on support services for seniors and people with disabilities — 53 percent of which was spent to keep those receiving support in their own homes rather than in nursing homes or institutions.

These services are a lifeline for people with disabilities, seniors, and their families. They can mean the difference between life or death — or the difference of a family member needing to quit her job to provide uncompensated care. Over the past 20 years, federal officials and advocates have worked together to promote community integration and in-home care for those receiving support, inspired by a 1999 Supreme Court decision that ruled that disabled Americans have a right to receive care outside of the segregated environments of nursing homes and institutions. To encourage states to expand in-home care, the federal government has offered carrots and sticks — from increases in the allotted federal match for state expenditures on such services to civil rights enforcement from the Department of Justice.

Unfortunately, Drumpf has proposed to block-grant Medicaid in his health policy platform. Such a measure would fundamentally change the nature of the program. Today, Medicaid matches each dollar spent by a state government with a dollar from the federal government — sometimes several times that, for states with higher percentages of low-income residents. Under a block-grant, states would simply receive a lump sum for Medicaid, with no additional funds should they expand their commitment and no real ability for advocates to use federal incentives to push for freeing seniors and people with disabilities from institutions and other segregated settings.

Block-granting Medicaid would also drastically reduce funding to the program over the coming decade. Assuming Drumpf intends to pursue a similar block-grant proposal to the one advanced by House Republicans this past year, block-granting would slash federal Medicaid funding by as much as $1 trillion between 2017 and 2026. By the 10-year mark, federal funding would stand at only two-thirds of its current level, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Not only would this effectively doom the chances of the hundreds of thousands of disabled adults now on waiting lists for in-home supports, but it would likely result in considerable service cutbacks to those now receiving care.

It’s frightening to think of how this could play out. Under the current system, Medicaid is an open-ended commitment — federal financing is guaranteed, and in exchange, states must provide care to all who are eligible. If block-granting proceeds, it would enable state officials to kick disabled adults and children out of life-preserving services for reasons of budget constraints, pressure from influential providers seeking to promote other business models, or any reason at all. Under a block grant, disabled Americans might effectively lack any rights to support services under federal law.

Block-granting has long been on the GOP’s policy wish list. With Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress, this is one wish Drumpf finally has the power to deliver.

Drumpf plans to eliminate critical legal protections for disabled people in the health care system

Of course, President Drumpf will be able to finally accomplish the Republican Party’s most heartfelt desire: repealing (and hypothetically replacing) the Affordable Care Act. For the low-income Americans who depend on the ACA’s insurance subsidies or Medicaid expansion for affordable coverage, this will be a disaster. For Americans with disabilities who depend on the law’s end to preexisting condition discrimination, it will be an unprecedented loss of both health care and civil rights.

When the Americans With Disabilities Act passed in 1990, advocates were forced to compromise and continue to allow disability discrimination in one particular arena: health insurance. At the time, the economics of health insurance were such that ending “medical underwriting” — the practice of charging more or denying coverage based on a disability or other preexisting condition — would collapse the industry. It was only with the introduction of the Affordable Care Act and its individual mandate that eliminating disability discrimination in insurance became feasible. In that sense, the Affordable Care Act completed the nondiscrimination requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act, more than two decades later.

With President Drumpf committed to eliminating the ACA and the individual mandate that allows for an end to preexisting condition discrimination, it seems inevitable that millions of disabled Americans will once again lack meaningful access to the private insurance market. As someone who had planned to get coverage from the ACA’s marketplaces this coming year, the potential loss of these protections fills me with concern.

Drumpf has also shown signs of affinity with the growing movement among congressional Republicans to weaken the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act privacy rights of people with mental illness. His website’s health policy platform references “promising reforms” to enable family members to access their relatives’ mental health records — a likely reference to Rep. Tim Murphy’s (R-PA) ongoing efforts to weaken HIPAA privacy protections, expand forced treatment, and hog-tie legal aid organizations funded to serve people with psychiatric disabilities.

Motivated by a desire to show congressional action after high-profile mass shootings, a number of GOP politicians have supported legislation that would drastically limit the degree to which people with mental health conditions could limit private medical information flowing to family members. As with so many other areas, mental health policy under President Drumpf is likely to grow more coercive, with little to no concern for the rights of those most vulnerable.

Drumpf may be about to set back federal autism policy by at least a decade

Drumpf has not been shy about his support for the thoroughly discredited idea that autism is caused by vaccinations. As early as the second GOP primary debate, Drumpf linked autism to vaccines, going on to spout the long discredited idea that “autism has become an epidemic. … Twenty-five years ago, 35 years ago, you look at the statistics, not even close. It has gotten totally out of control.”

Of course, this is not true — not only has the autism-vaccine link been shown to be false, but a growing body of scientific evidence shows that autistic people have always existed in approximately the same proportion of the general population, rather than constituting a recent epidemic. But while Drumpf’s comments on autism have little scientific legitimacy, they have tremendous political relevance.

Over the past 10 years, federal autism policy has witnessed a sea change. As autistic self-advocates (those of us who are autistic ourselves) began to play a bigger role in autism policymaking, discussion began on the need to shift from an overwhelming emphasis on causation, biology, and cure to promoting new investments in services, educational methodologies, and assistive technology.

Many policymakers took note of the objection from large segments of the autistic community to attempting to “cure” autism, hearing our preference to instead focus on improving the opportunity for autistic people to develop skills and lead successful lives as autistic adults. At the behest of advocates like me, Congress changed the nation’s premier autism statute from the Combating Autism Act to the Autism CARES Act, denoting a shift toward a greater emphasis on services rather than trying to make autistic people look and act “normal.”

It’s long been clear to autistic activists that Drumpf is aligned with the most reactionary forces in the autism community, who would prefer that none of these changes take place. He enjoyed endorsements relatively early in the cycle from prominent anti-vaccine activists who adamantly oppose recent shifts toward a more progressive autism policy. Bob Wright, the founder of the powerful and often reviled Autism Speaks charity (who is known for his own anti-vaccine leanings), tweeted his enthusiastic support in April. Now that Drumpf is poised to take the presidency, he will likely turn to these early allies to fill key roles in his administration relevant to autism and disability. The potential outcomes are frightening.

Disability activists have faced down conservative attempts to roll back disability rights before — and won

In 1981, the newly sworn-in Reagan administration came to Washington with the stated goal of eliminating pesky federal regulation — and new disability rights laws were squarely within its crosshairs. After a failed attempt to repeal the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (which guaranteed children with disabilities the right to access public schools for the first time), the Reagan administration moved to weaken the law through regulation. A massive backlash ensued, led by the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund’s Pat Wright and the Disability Rights Center’s Evan Kemp Jr. The ultimate result: More than 40,000 cards and letters from disabled people and family members sent to the White House. Shortly afterward, the Reagan administration backed off trying to change special education law. It would not try again.

Another effort by Reagan to remove people from the rolls of the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program was more successful — for a time. In 1981, the Reagan administration ordered a review of more than 1 million SSDI cases, prompted by concerns that the program had grown from a $3.1 billion to a $15.5 billion price tag between 1970 and 1980.

Again, disability advocates mobilized en masse, with advocacy groups and friendly members of Congress publicizing suicides due to disabled people losing their benefits and calling attention to the relatively cavalier approach undertaken by the Reagan-era Social Security Administration (by 1987, 63 percent of the 315,910 removed from benefits were determined to be improperly denied and had their cash payment under the program restored).

Subsequent class-action litigation won beneficiaries the right to appeal and reapply for benefits after a federal judge ruled that the government had inappropriately removed from benefits individuals who had no change in the severity of their disability. By 1983, advocates had successfully pushed through a law ensuring that disabled beneficiaries could keep their benefits while appeals were underway — with Reagan pulling back on further efforts to purge the program and paying lip service to “truly deserving” disabled people.

Just as 1980s disability advocates successfully defeated Reagan’s attempted rollback of federal disability programs, the current generation has the opportunity to do the same to President Drumpf.

The Drumpf presidency will be a disaster — but even a disaster presents certain opportunities

Still, I won’t pretend that the aftermath of the 2016 election isn’t leaving people with disabilities feeling like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football before Lucy pulls it out from under him. It’s galling to face the prospect of President Drumpf in the same year that brought landmark advances in the visibility and priority placed on disability rights. In the space of a few hours, we went from planning how to make sure President Clinton lives up to her campaign promises to planning a desperate fight to make sure President Drumpf does not live up to his.

And yet, as in all such things, there is opportunity in disaster. Our imminent Drumpf presidency is likely to be a calamity for a broad swath of Americans — and liberal and progressive activists will respond by seeking to attack Drumpf on every front available. For a disability rights movement that’s often seen as the orphan stepchild of progressive advocacy, there’s a chance to better integrate disability into the liberal pantheon of diversity, identity, and protected class. By better highlighting how disabled Americans will almost certainly suffer under Drumpf policies, disability activists can familiarize the advocates and policymakers who will form the nucleus of the next Democratic administration with our needs and our values.

Just like the George W. Bush administration’s crusade against same-sex marriage helped to normalize the role of the LGBTQ movement under the civil rights umbrella (and within the Democratic Party’s political coalition), it may very well be that disability rights activists will achieve greater solidarity from other progressive groups after four years of shared opposition to the outrages of President Drumpf. Compared with the potentially game-changing strides forward promised by the Clinton campaign, this is cold comfort — but it is something we can cling to as we prepare for the fights to come. With the lives of millions of Americans with disabilities at stake — as well as those of people of color, Jews, Muslims, low-income persons, LGBTQ Americans, and members of other marginalized groups — we need all the silver lining we can find. The next four years will be difficult ones.

he is SOOOOooo this generation's Reagan. just a much, much nastier outfit on the puppet this time.i actually worry about Pence more than Drumpf. Pence is the one who actually knows how shit gets done and can navigate the waters to ensure his horrid little ideas come to fruition. i'm really hoping he doesn't end up being the Cheney to Drumpf's Bush.

The Russian government was in touch with members of President-elect Donald Drumpf's political team during the U.S. election campaign and knows most of his entourage, one of Russia's most senior diplomats told the Interfax news agency on Thursday.

Accused by defeated Democratic contender Hillary Clinton of being a puppet of President Vladimir Putin after praising the Russian leader, Drumpf has dismissed suggestions he had anything to do with the Russian government during the campaign.

But in comments that could prove politically awkward for the president-elect, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said there had indeed been some communications.ADVERTISINGinRead invented by Teads

"There were contacts," Interfax cited Ryabkov as saying. "We are doing this and have been doing this during the election campaign."

Such contacts would continue, he added, saying the Russian government knew and had been in touch with many of Drumpf's closest allies. He did not name names.

"Obviously, we know most of the people from his (Drumpf's)entourage. Those people have always been in the limelight in the United States and have occupied high-ranking positions," he said.

"I cannot say that all of them, but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives."

Moscow was just beginning to consider how to go about setting up more formal channels to communicate with the future Drumpf administration, said Ryabkov.

A spokeswoman for Drumpf did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

FBI INQUIRY

The Federal Bureau of Investigation opened a preliminary inquiry in recent months into allegations that Drumpf or his associates might have had questionable dealings with Russian people or businesses, but found no evidence to warrant opening a full investigation, according to sources familiar with the matter. The agency has not publicly discussed the probe.

The U.S. government has blamed Russia for cyber attacks on Democratic Party organizations.

Drumpf, who has spoken of his desire to improve tattered U.S.-Russia ties, has said he might meet Putin before his inauguration, but Putin's spokesman has said there are currently no plans for such a meeting.

Interfax reported on Wednesday that Dmitry Peskov, Putin's spokesman, would be in New York this week for a chess tournament, a few blocks from Drumpf Tower, where the president-elect has his office.

In late October, Donald Drumpf released an action plan for what he hopes to accomplish in his first 100 days in office. Below, NPR reporters and editors from the politics team and other coverage areas have annotated Drumpf's plan. We've adding context on several of his proposals, including whether he can really repeal Obamacare and what a hiring freeze on the federal workforce would actually look like. You can see a non-annotated version of "Donald Drumpf's Contract With The American Voter" here.

If you look at establishment Republicans right now, they are NOT taking this as a win for them either... this shook up the system to a level that we haven't seen in, well ever. Maybe this is what it takes for actual change to happen... if we can just get through it. The problem is though, are they just going to get better at lying to us and hiding secrets? If we really want to change things it's going to take more than just putting the right establishment politicians into office. We need to make people not want to be a career politician in the first place. Bring back the citizen statesman. Institute term limits for every political office, including SCOTUS. No more lifetime salaries and benefits for politicians. Once they leave office, they get no more pay from taxpayers, period. Take away the governments ability to give incentives to businesses (corporations, banks, etc) and allow businesses to succeed or fail on their own merits. Reform campaign donating and enforce the laws on the books with impunity. There's some change for the better for you...

What's really important is that the shitty hate needs to end. It's like Hilary supporters forgot that everyone has freedom of choice. This whole "You didn't vote for who I voted for. That makes you a hateful, racist, mysoginistic piece of shit because you're not reasonable for doing exactly what I did" mentality needs to disappear if we are going to end all of this needless hate.

It's extremists on BOTH ends taking it to a level that should never be reached, and that type of mentality needs to stop on both ends on all levels.

Feydakin wrote:If you look at establishment Republicans right now, they are NOT taking this as a win for them either... this shook up the system to a level that we haven't seen in, well ever. Maybe this is what it takes for actual change to happen... if we can just get through it. The problem is though, are they just going to get better at lying to us and hiding secrets? If we really want to change things it's going to take more than just putting the right establishment politicians into office. We need to make people not want to be a career politician in the first place. Bring back the citizen statesman. Institute term limits for every political office, including SCOTUS. No more lifetime salaries and benefits for politicians. Once they leave office, they get no more pay from taxpayers, period. Take away the governments ability to give incentives to businesses (corporations, banks, etc) and allow businesses to succeed or fail on their own merits. Reform campaign donating and enforce the laws on the books with impunity. There's some change for the better for you...

omg all of this ^

Rivoc wrote:What's really important is that the shitty hate needs to end. It's like Hilary supporters forgot that everyone has freedom of choice. This whole "You didn't vote for who I voted for. That makes you a hateful, racist, mysoginistic piece of shit because you're not reasonable for doing exactly what I did" mentality needs to disappear if we are going to end all of this needless hate.

It's extremists on BOTH ends taking it to a level that should never be reached, and that type of mentality needs to stop on both ends on all levels.

i think some people are having a difficult time compartmentalizing supporting a man that has inspired such hate against soooo many different kinds of people in relation to folks they otherwise know to be decent citizens. i won't say that it isn't baffling at the least. this isn't about politics for me, it's about how we treat each other. and until Drumpf denounces it from his supporters people are going to lash out because sooooo much changed in the blink of an eye. i mean, when was the last time the KKK openly celebrated a candidate? usually that sorta shit is political death but nope, not for him. he isn't commending any of it.

i do not agree with violence and harassment from any side, ever. i know that there are extremists at each corner. i do not agree with the whole #notmypresident movement either.

when Obama was elected, there were people who feared for their lives because they LITERALLY thought the world was going to end. a man shot his whole family and then himself because of this belief. but we're not talking about people being scared out of their minds because of some whacky conspiracy theories. we're talking real-people life-changing-fear. when 8yr olds are asking their mommies & daddies if they are getting deported, this is more epic and deeper into uncharted waters than we have ever seen before. it's not looking pretty so far...

The term was coined by Richard B. Spencer, a white supremacist who rabidly promotes white supremacist views and who is currently the President of the National Policy Institute, a right-wing think tank dedicated to normalizing right-wing ideology. The term, "alt-right" was coined specifically to normalize white supremacy in the public's eyes through the media. It's the use of language to normalize extremist views.

To wit: rather than using the term, "white supremacist", you'll hear them call themselves, "identitarians" (a term itself derived from the Bloc Identitaire, a far-right segregationist group in France - basically, Neo-Nazis in trendy clothes). It all means the same thing.

With Steve Bannon, white supremacist and master propagandist, as Drumpf's senior adviser and the right-wing media figures he's lining up to be the messaging arm of this regime - be wary of the re-branding of extremist ideas with language. Listen carefully. Interpret. Never allow the normalization of fascist ideology.

The term was coined by Richard B. Spencer, a white supremacist who rabidly promotes white supremacist views and who is currently the President of the National Policy Institute, a right-wing think tank dedicated to normalizing right-wing ideology. The term, "alt-right" was coined specifically to normalize white supremacy in the public's eyes through the media. It's the use of language to normalize extremist views.

To wit: rather than using the term, "white supremacist", you'll hear them call themselves, "identitarians" (a term itself derived from the Bloc Identitaire, a far-right segregationist group in France - basically, Neo-Nazis in trendy clothes). It all means the same thing.

With Steve Bannon, white supremacist and master propagandist, as Drumpf's senior adviser and the right-wing media figures he's lining up to be the messaging arm of this regime - be wary of the re-branding of extremist ideas with language. Listen carefully. Interpret. Never allow the normalization of fascist ideology.

I agree with Mr. Husband here. He is right, alt-right was created as a way to normalize a lot that they do, and make it okay. Well, it is not okay with me and almost all my family. I have racist (insert a long string of bad words here) that I can not do anything about because they will not listen to reason. Not even the one who currently has medical care due to expanded Medicaid... granted they do live in Kentucky and now may end up losing it because they voted in their Republican Governer and they just love him.

I think that there is currently a chrome extension that will change alt-right to something similar to what you husband has described them as.

I'll add more to this topic.. in another post.. cause, Oh boy! have I got some stuff to talk about.

in the meantime...it's not as easy to laugh about this now, but i can't wait for his next special where he will likely reference this bit:

Im actually a huge fan of his, and have been for a few years now. Off topic, but his television series on Netflix is really, really funny and very politically incorrect. but if you enjoyed his previous standups, Id say its worth a look. its called "legit" and its def rated MA. DJ Qualls plays a ball busting parapallegic (spelling?!) and the weird looking guy from "Chuck" that worked at the buy more, the bald dude, plays his best friend/roommate. its full of shennanigans.

That’s how Richard B. Spencer saluted more than 200 attendees on Saturday, gathered at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C., for the annual conference of the National Policy Institute, which describes itself as “an independent organization dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.”

Might be BuzzFeed the same folks that you get the funny stories from.. but damn what is in that document..

The first three points — under part I, “Bar the Entry of Potential Terrorists” — on the paper read:1. Update and reintroduce the NSEERS screening and tracking system (National Security Entry-Exit Registration System) that was in place from 2002-2005. All aliens from high-risk areas are tracked.

2. Add extreme vetting questions for high-risk aliens: question them regarding support for Sharia law, jihad, equality of men and women, the United States Constitution.

Part II plans the removal of a “Record Number of Criminal Aliens in the First Year.” The plan specifically mentions “193,000 criminal removal cases dropped by the Obama Administration”; recommends issuance of new guidance relating to removal priorities; and references extensive use of section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows the DHS to deputize local law enforcement to carry out immigration functions, in “at least 70 cities and counties.”

-------------------------------

With both stories, I am hoping that this is not the new normal? If it is, Fuck.

Ths does not even touch on the issues of Drumpf, with his plans and the policies.. which I am sure will be exposed more and more, as the days go on. There is not a day that goes by that shows that this man was unfit for the office of President.

With that.. some words of Wisdom by Green Day (cause they rock). No Drumpf, No KKK, No Fascist USA!

Drumpf's response to the conflicts of interest piling up like a nightmare right now? 1) He blames the media for "making it a big deal". 2) He says there are conflicts of interest - he doesn't care - and that if you voted for him, you knew there would be - so it's your fault.

annnd now Ben Carson is going to be head of Housing & Urban Development. wow.

i mean when you look at his lineup so far, for the "non-Washington insider" he sure seems to be filling his staff with all the standard insiders he can find. (Carson actually might be the only one not included in this group; he's just a moronic psycho. but at least he's aware and admitted he doesn't have the experience for a Cabinet position!)

so much for "draining the swamp".

and really, it's shaping up to be the most disgusting of the bunch possible. i mean really...even scandalicious Petraeus is shortlisted for Secretary of State. but where is the outcry over his emails...you know, how he actually KNOWINGLY mishandled classified information!??!!!http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... .html?_r=0

Carson, the man who can not remember that he ran for President, will head up Housing and Urban Development. While people tend to make fun of this cabinet position (see Designated Survivor). This guy would control HUD, Ginnie Mae, Low-Rent stuff, Office of Inspector General, Fair Housing Authority, you know that one that was created because black folks lived on one side of town and white folks lived on another.

Sorry for the Wiki Link, but it is 1:30am, and well.. damn this is bad.

It is not like Carson has any idea how in the fuck to run a housing program, sure he is smart. Not this type of smart, this needs to be handled by someone who understands how cities work, how housing trends change over time, how populations shit and move, and a bunch of other stuff. I have a MA in History, does that mean I can be an RN.. no, but I can talk someone's head off about useless historical facts or help with archive work.

At least once or maybe 10+ times a day, me and my mom talk about Drumpf and what next .. and personally, while Drumpf is a dick and I am worried. I am also worried about what the the hell Paul Ryan is going to do with things like Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and other government programs. Shit.. some of that is scary yo, and will be added just as soon as my brain is functioning again in the morning, kittens are currently keeping me up.

Skywalker wrote:Carson, the man who can not remember that he ran for President, will head up Housing and Urban Development. While people tend to make fun of this cabinet position (see Designated Survivor). This guy would control HUD, Ginnie Mae, Low-Rent stuff, Office of Inspector General, Fair Housing Authority, you know that one that was created because black folks lived on one side of town and white folks lived on another.

as funny as it is sad....how can a man run for President but now say he isn't qualified to run this Cabinet spot? ughhhh my brain HURTS.just goes to show you that Drumpf doesn't give 2 shits about Housing & Urban Dev.

A group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers have found irregularities in results in at least three swing states.

The group believes **they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked.** In Wisconsin alone, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000.

In light of the Russian hacking of voting machines prior to election day, this is alarming.

The margins in WI, MI and PA were small enough and the fact that Russia *did* hack actual voter registration offices prior to election day, in addition to actively trying to influence the election - as far as I'm concerned, a recount, monitored by the current DOJ, would go a long way towards verifying that our Democracy wasn't attacked further than we already know it was. Considering the unprecedented interference by a foreign power, and the margins - it seems like a no-brainer to me. The fact that the media seems to be treating this as if it were a normal election now, is disturbing. Totally ignoring Russia admitting it was in contact with Drumpf's campaign through the election - which means the campaign *lied* about it - is astonishing to me.

I have read that Stine woman, is currently wanting a recount. Even has the funds to pay for it.

Here is a news story on that, it is the only one that I can find right now. I doubt too many would cover it, because it is Stine and well to many she was a nobody. I just was not a fan of a lot of her policies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have been reading up on the possible New Sec. of Education, you know that area of government that folks want to do way with. OMG, that woman is crazy. Not sure if this is true, but apparently she is alright with losing the laws to allow children to work instead of going to school. Last time I checked, Child Labor did not work out so well for us or England... or anyone really? Apparently, it is to help to teach poor kids the value of labor and money. Like we need to be taught that, I saw my dad literally work himself to death, that is why he was dead before he was 50, because he started to work at 12. His dad, my papal, never completed the 2nd grade, instead started to work in the Coal Mines, he always wanted to learn how to read and write. That bothered him greatly. Do they want to go back to that, having kids in coal mines or as one person put it, working in Walmart being a cashier?

Here are the two sites.. I say take them with a grain of salt. With all the stuff that comes out of the Trump-sphear .. this sounds plausible or I am really sleepy.. I hope and pray that I am wrong, oh so wrong.

i don't even understand what is happening anymore. Stein was in Russia at the same dinner with Putin that Drumpf was at, sitting next to the propaganda head. The Greens were endorsing Drumpf near the end of the election. but now she is funding a recount?

Lots of backpedalling from Drumpf already. some good, some bad. Any presidentail candidate is going to say what they need to to get elected obviously, I have no idea what is going to happen.

This Standing Rock news, i only know what i read from the net and cnn's website as i like to think they are the most truthful of the major networks. I def dont watch local news anymore. that aside, im wondering if the President, Obama or Drumpf, have ANY intentions of addressing how or why the government is treating peacefui protests in such a disturbing manner.

the country is already divided enough, and this is HUGE and practically everyone knows about it (at least i hope). If either pres wanted to really unite our people, lets address why peaceful protesters are getting water hosed, tear gassed, and rubber bullet shot, by our government.

If you're going to piss all over The Constitution and our rights, at elast tell us why, right? or STOP and let us know you know you are wrong. Its like the govmt learned NOTHING from the past they dont like to speak of.

All this said, i am not that educated and havent researched a whole lot about the situation, just the few headlines and articles - some from CNN, some from other sources i know not how legit they are.